Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda vs State Dishonest improvement made by witness

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Dishonest improvement made by witness---Scope---Dishonest improvement or omission for strengthening the case, cannot be relied upon. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Warrant of proclamation, issuance of---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per case of the prosecution, warrant for arrest of appellant was issued and his proclamation was also issued yet suffice it to say that perusal of warrant of the arrest revealed that as per contents of said warrant neither any Police Official nor any other public servant/person was asked through said warrant to arrest the appellant rather said column was blank---Similarly, perusal of proclamation also reflected that it had not been mentioned therein that under which period/how many days and on which date, the appellant had to surrender rather said columns were blank---Therefore, warrant of arrest and proclamation were defective---Even otherwise, abscondence was not the substantive piece of evidence, it could neither be viewed as proof for the crime nor could cure defects of the case of prosecution---In this case, when ocular account had been discarded then absconsion was of no help to the case of prosecution at all---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties--- Inconsequential ---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per record pistol was recovered from the appellant and three empties were recovered from the spot---As per report of Firearm & Toolmarks Examination Report of Forensic Science Agency, identification of three empty cartridges as having been fired from said pistol---Inquest report of the deceased was prepared at the place of occurrence and availability of any empty shells was not mentioned in column No.22 & 33 of the inquest report which made availability of empty shells at the place of occurrence as doubtful---As per case of prosecution, pistol along with three live bullets were secured through sealed parcel, however, as per report of Forensic Science Agency, parcel received in said Agency though contained .30 bore pistol along with test fires with magazine but availability of three live bullets in the said parcel was not mentioned in the report---Meaning thereby that parcel which was having pistol and three live bullets was not sent to the Forensic Science Agency for comparison/ examination rather parcel received over there was simply having pistol and test fires in it, therefore, safe custody of said parcel of the pistol and bullets had been compromised and not established which ultimately made report of Forensic Science Agency as inconclusive, inconsequential and of no helpful to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Double presumption of innocence---Scope---after acquittal, accused person attains double presumption of innocence and Courts are always slow to disturb the same. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State S. 154---First Information Report---Scope---First Information Report (crime report) is the corner stone and foundational element of the case of prosecution and if same has not been recorded promptly after the occurrence, then superstructure raised on the basis of said FIR in the form of case of prosecution is bound to fall. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is mere supportive/confirmatory type of evidence; it can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury, but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of seven hours and thirty minutes in conducting post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---As per post-mortem examination report, dead body was received at dead-house at 8.40 p.m., autopsy was conducted at 8.45 p.m. on 09.03.2020, so post mortem was conducted after about 07 hours and 30 minutes of the occurrence which statedly took place at 1.15 p.m.---So post mortem examination was conducted with delay and reason for the same was that complete documents from police for post mortem examination were received at 8.30 p.m. on 09.03.2020---Meaning thereby that documents for post mortem examination were prepared with delay and time was consumed for preparing said documents---Said state of affair further reflected that none of the eye-witnesses including complainant was present at the time and place of occurrence and time was consumed for inducing, procuring and engaging witnesses as well as for tailoring story for the prosecution after consultation and deliberation---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witnesses, evidence of ---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Ocular account in the case comprised of statement of complainant/eye-witness and other eye-witness---Occurrence in the case took place in the area of C-(Chiniot) whereas complainant was not resident of said vicinity rather he was resident of other district, J-(Jhang)---Though eye-witness was the resident of same village of occurrence but as per site-plan of the place of occurrence, he was neither having any residence nor any shop/business place at adjacent or around the place of occurrence, therefore, both the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and they were bound to bring on record and prove valid, cogent and acceptable reason to show/establish their presence at the time and place of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Motive behind occurrence mentioned in application for registration of the case was that on 08.03.2020 in the house of sister of complainant which was situated in City, an altercation took place/hot words exchanged between deceased and appellant and due to said grudge, accused persons by way of making firing with pistol had committed murder---However, said sister who was star witness in that regard was not produced by the prosecution during trial of the case---Complainant was not present at the time of said quarrel and therefore, not the witness of the said occurrence constituting motive---Similarly, eye-witness was also not present at the time of motive incident and he had not witnessed the same---Therefore, any evidence to establish/ prove motive had not been produced by the prosecution and motive remained unproved---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Single dent/circumstance in case of prosecution would be sufficient for acquittal. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased categorically stated that time between injury and death was 30 to 60 minutes---Both injuries were on non-vital part, death occurred due to excessive hemorrhage and had the deceased been given proper medical aid timely in between 30 minutes, there would have been chance of his survival---As per case of prosecution accused persons had already left the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, then if said witnesses including complainant (who was real brother of the deceased) were present at the time and place of occurrence, then why they (complainant and other cited eye-witnesses) did not manage deceased, why they did not try to shift him for providing him medical aid and why let victim remained lying in injured condition from 30 to 60 minutes, resulting into oozing of his blood and causing his death due to hemorrhage i.e. blood loss---Moreover, if complainant being brother of deceased attended his brother after the occurrence and his clothes were stained with blood then why he did not produce his said clothes to the Investigating officer or in Court---Both cited eye-witnesses could not bring any material to establish convincing and acceptable reason to show their presence at the time and scene/place of occurrence---So much so, number, colour, make and model of motorcycle allegedly used by accused persons in the occurrence was not mentioned in application for registration of case---In such scenario, evidence of both the cited witnesses, who could not explain/establish any valid reason/cause regarding their stated presence at the stated time, at the place of occurrence, was "suspect" evidence and could not be accepted without pinch of salt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of two hours and fifty minutes in lodging the FIR------Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Occurrence took place at about 01.15 pm on 09.03.2020---Distance between place of occurrence and police station was just 3.5 km, however matter was reported by complainant through oral statement to police at the place of occurrence at 03.50 pm on 09.03.2020---First Information Report was recorded in the light of said statement at 04.05 pm at police station---Said facts showed that the said distance was covered within just 15-minutes---As per application, deceased was succumbed to the injuries at the spot and distance from the place of occurrence to the police station was coverable within 15-minutes, however, matter was not reported immediately to the police within reasonable time rather police come at the place of occurrence and recorded statement of the complainant for registration of the case at 03.50 pm and thereafter FIR was registered at 04.05 pm---Police Officials clearly stated before the Court that they reached at the place of occurrence at about 02.30 pm and statement of complainant for registration of case was recorded at 02.30 pm rather at 03.50 pm---Any explanation in that regard was not available on the record, therefore, matter had not been promptly reported to the police rather with delay and any plausible reason to explain said delay was neither available in fard-e-biyan for registration of the case nor otherwise had been brought on record---Hence, case had been registered with undue and unexplained delay---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Muhammad Adnan alias Chanda vs State Dishonest improvement made by witness — 2025 YLR 2049 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR